Meno_ wrote:There still remains the lurid record of the purges of members of the ancient regime, memorialized by the most famous scene of the murder of Marat.

As far as the foibles of history go, pictures are worth far more then words. Your pictorial representations are very relevant to the motive of the course of this discussion.

Yes, but note that pictures are not always far more worth than words. They too can give you the wrong impression and are used for the purpose of propaganda

The worth of propaganda is not always evaluated in terms of right or wrong, they are mostly seen for what they are worth in terms of being effective or not.

When Trump's involvement allegedly underlying the conspiracy to stop the investigation is muted by a picture of Trump's audience with the pope, some die hard members of his base, some Catholic, interpret this positively toward the base allegation; whereas Spicer's exclusion from said meeting may not create a positive image, without the actual photograph.

The thoughts of the former usually creat positive inference, whereas the later, more likely shift toward a non pictorial reasoning process, as to an absence, a shift from a figurative to a literal basing of cognition.

The goodness or badness of the propaganda value, at first, do not involve the question of which presentation is good or bad, but instead compares the picture of Trump with the verbal content of the other. Which propaganda is of more value in terms of getting to the truth? The absence of Spicer, literally, or the presence of Trump figuratively?

A constitutional crisis. It has been suggested that a debate on Trump , at this point might be premature, and the better way may consist in a contest between the pros and cons of capitalism.

I think to argue that may also incite those who look at the world-soul as a unitary ideal between the sudden upsurge of Uber-materialism of relatively recent panic reaction to its possible demolition, and, its moral position as the basis for a credible social system.

Therefore the introduction of a world out of alignment between its present delicate material versus its moral-spiritual component, has come to a point of crisis, a crisis that has not been precedented in its scope and potential magnitude in the amount of damage hidden within its folds of repressed mania.

That the mania is two fold, rather, three, is inherent in the Freudian one primarily, an erotomania of the extremist kind, as manifested in its various signatures of weltschmertz, as it comes through a kind of shaded lens, one that betokens to more kindly times of deflection, of which less and less is apparent.

Secondarily, the very subtle political shift which has equally been subverted, in the sphere of the constitution, in both senses of the social and psychological and the political one. Because, the difference between the US Constitution's promise of a calibrated and synced, and attuned relation between human rights, vested and guaranteed by the implied tools of getting there-by the enjoyment of life, the material manifestation of social economics and the rights to attain them through the power of the self, Sought to sustain it'self of its right for self determination.

That these two spheres have come totally unglued, and currently are only sustained through the ever repeating and increasingly ominous re-appearance of cryptic and cynical sophistry, condescendingly pressing into an incredulous public the dictum, that power needs no explanation to clarify, because, times are complex, and the herd is basically fodder anyway.

The effects are obvious, and the fact that things are allowed to go on, in spite of astounding abuses of power, constitutional decomposition, and the by which lies have become a matter of fact accepted way to carry on daily life, support it, have become commonplace , daily occurances.I will not speak of the consequences either way, but one thing is very clear:Capital is in deep trouble, and the political, economic, and military apparatus is geared to the n'th degree, poised to defend it by whatever it takes, even the use of weapons of mass destruction, or the abbrigation , or elimination of human rights, as we have come to understand them.

The only reason for this new, relative and uncanny ability to hold on to power, is, that democracy is failing as well, at a time when Capital is in its greatest peril since it's inception.

The liberals and their counterparts, their constituency are increasingly becoming hostile among themselvessubliminally acting out of their diminishing sense of their own being, in terms of their sense of constitution. Here, constitution in its generic sense, implies a psychosocial existence, increasingly experienced as being on seige, by forces, outside of their own sense of control. Increasingly, society surrenders more and more to upper echelon authority, by virtue of being in direct relation to their own sense of dispossession from traditional introjected roles within that sense.

This dissipated constitution,reminds of earlier , now archaic categories of psychiatric nomenclature, such as in a psychoneurotic category of the past: neurasthenia.

The libido surges to overcome this general fatigue, in a desperate effort to overcome the loss of power, by a resulting erotomania, filling the emptying middle self ideal with a libinized ideal, forming a renewed interest in the looking glass-mirror of the vanity by which the evil queen was destroyed by vanity, before she exclaimed-who is the fairest of them all? This mirror stage was applied in French symbolism, and incorporated as the modus operans of an existential process of the post Freudians, Attari in particular.

The reduction of a dated and porous Freudianism, to this new ontology of mirrored effects, reflects the ambiguity inherent in an original constitution. That the solution can only be found in the fetish, the loosening of meaningful associations, a cut up of symbolic ties, is a defensive process; vis, almost to the point of pre-figuring the omnious implications which a socially disintegrated aesthetic can cause, without breaking the main significant anchored line of signification. This looseness of the aesthetic, of the phenomenal, has the more, re-asserted the projective necessity for the noumenal.

This process is fast becoming the normal, the expressive relativity of correctness, and is not meant as suggestive, only a kind of sketch, of an internalization of the inner soul of a narcissist.

Since no challenge has been given, I propose the following: I will debate either side of the argument, based on my divided opinion 50/50) on the proposed issue. Most all opinion polls have split evenly on the proposed debate on this issue, so, just like in chess, when you are given the choice of choosing black or white randomly, I will follow that format, on basis of chance, rather then political bias. At this point, on basis of in house polls, and the great political divide, I cannot decisively claim to have any bias at all. So if someone wants to debate , I will at this point afford the benefit of choosing which side of the argument he/she wants to argue, hoping this will enhance the possibility of a meaningful debate, apart from personalities' appearently bias.

Arminius wrote:As long as there is capitalism (techno-creditism), there is communism (egalitarianism) too. Their "Synthesis" (cp. Hegel) is globalism or "humanitarianism" where communism and/or capitalism are/is not gone, but merely "aufgehoben" (Hegel).

Arminius wrote:[url=http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=187738&hilit=hegel%27s+dialec&start=25#p2641936]And by the way:

When it comes to the obfuscation of familial, genealogical and successful filiations (especially if they are the basics for the premises of a so-called "social life") the alleged "enemies" capitalism/liberalism and communism/socialism are the best friends.[/url]

Maybe we should try to continue this conservaion in [url=http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=187738&hilit=hegel%27s+dialec]the following thread[/url], Jerkey.

Arminius, that one would be fine, or this one You previously suggested. Thanks, I am eagerly awaitingyour comments, especially in light of what has happened in Hamburg.

Thanks for Your reply,Arminius. We have already agreed about a number of things, among them the appropriateness of the dialectic, I saw this coming as early as the Reagan years, when the dialectic seemed to have expired with the demise of Communism. The take on it at the time was reasonable enough, it will leave a vacuum of rationale, in strictly reasonable terms.

However, no one expected a persistent widening of inclusion of an anti thesis of a system which does not operate utilizing its opposite.

In other words the US operates under a differing set of assumptions, whereby, it's social and political evolution consisted of primarily economic condpsidetation based on overwhelming commercial values, whereas its nemesis, the former Soviets incorporated ideological primacy as their basis for society. Marx's theory evolves out of the foreseeability of socio-economic distress as the outcome of a uncontrolled , pragmatic approach.

The widening of the function of the dialectic to include the substantial non ideological concept of Material, assumes the successful implementation of an arguably substantial pragmatic concept within the logical structure of Hegelian Dialectics. This is what he was doing, within the primary assumptions of adapting one into the other.

Is Your further inclusion of the wider variables of different systems of not only Communism and Capitalism, but there derivatives of pragmatism against idealism, (if you could see communism as aligned to a primary start of social equality as ideal).

Further, if You could claim, that globalist can change between the two The thesis or the anti thesis, if, that could account for the trouble in Germany, -but I am jumping ahead, and more needs to be said about the suprising antithesis of the German position, with their dissatisfaction with Trump.

Germany actually switched , under Merkel, granted, from an ideally oriented society, where racial purity had exclusive philosophical and historical precedents, to multi culturalism, (and again here a subset could account for this , in the argument that labor is sorely needed in Germany, hence the need to import foreign workers)-but no need to dwell on this here.

The fact is, globalists seem to underwrite the confusion, between primary and secondary considerations.

My personal impression so far , of Trump, and Trumpism, is at this early period, is that he is obscure intentionally, to cover for the workability toward the synthesis. He comes in as a populist, catering to a class who feel they really are poor, white underdogs, resenting what they feel as reverse discrimination in terms of programs devoted to economic equalization, - and ironically, being one the wealthiest people in the US, he wins. He is the paradigm of a synthetic man, a pragmatist, whose message sounds more like a socialist. Is this not the perfect example of adopting a prahmatic materialism to a social dialectic?

What this means, or could possibly mean, is that Trump suffers from inauthenticity at the very least, or a gross manufacturer of misrepresented goods, at the worst.

Perhaps this confusion became appearently inHamburg to the stent it had, coming to open social violence, whereas the confusion in the US, so far has been subdued, and sustained on the level of verbal dissension.

The big question is, whether the confusion is the effect of the failure of the wider dialectical inclusion of the very antithesis that produced the different systems, if it is somewhat possible to believe that Marx substantiation of Hegel's pure dialectic was a proximate cause of the evolution of the differing thesis of communism; whereas, now it is no longer a question of the evolutionary differentiation, but the setting up of an allegedly failed system against the other.

Can a conclusion of sorts be reached, at least on some level? Can it be that with the alleged demise of the substantiated dialectical materialism, a further failure of pure capitalism was not foreseen? And that a new synthesis in the form of globalization was to be the key to the survival of a comprehensive system?

And perhaps such a synthesis included a minimalization of the differences, by a reduction to more existential terms? That would explain the resistance of the U S federal government, namely the Department of Labor to resist the States efforts to raise the minimum hourly rate of labor?

The rationale here, is the equalization of global wages, minimizing rates of the Western Industrial Nations with those of the Third World.

The wider perimeter here is made more complicated by the possession or near possession of nuclear weapons by third world countries such as North Korea, whereby a liberal constitution would topple its dictatorship.

Arminius, a while back, You were of the opinion, that had Ms. Clinton, nuclear war would have been unavoidable, on basis of regional conflict, I suppose, which really didn't become clear at the time in Your assessment. However, if the wider extension of a reposition of the Hegel Dialectic is considered, then it seems worthwhile to consider the widely discussed Constitutional Issued arising out of the wider conflict, as echoed by Trump's hyperbolic rhetoric of basing the assessment of the conflict on the idea of the 'Clash of Civilizations'. There appears a parallel here, but the question is, is Trump actually expressing hyperbolic rhetoric for the sake of sustaining or increasing the level of chaos? Or, is the world so chaotic nowadays, that Obama's and other US presidents were trying to regulate and control the dangerous state?

So the synthesis (Heglelian) must be tethering between substantial and insubstantial manifestation, work in progress.

If the above comes close to what's going on, then the manifested conflicts in Hamburg may be more of a symptom of a general feeling of confusion, rather then a clear sense an underlying illness.

Forgive the clumsy length, but I know , if anyone can You can distill into a general understanding of the intentended meaning here. If not, please let me know. Don't be surprised, if I am unable to paraphrase, technically it is impossible for me at this time, but will look into later on.

If you can switch between any thesis and any antithesis, then you are near the position Hegel described with "der absolute Geist". Then you are almost like God. There is no or almost no chance for a real opposition.

OK, let's leave that for now, and go back to an earlier point You made of Hegel's use of the word : aufgehoben. The meaning of the word has several references in usage, : lift up, abolish, cancel, suspend, sublate, preserve, transcend, annul, rescind, neutralize, balance out; in reference to Hegel's use.

It's apropo and ironic simultaneously to hold an etymological disparity of one word, while holding to the unification of disparate political systems, which seems to validate in this way a congruency, which underlies Your proposition.

Does this somehow, in a far flung manner possibly demonstrate the geometrical, or spatial logic underlying this seeming unity of both: the linguistic contradictory derivative, with the societal , familial process that is also mentioned above?

Meno_ wrote:OK, let's leave that for now, and go back to an earlier point You made of Hegel's use of the word : aufgehoben. The meaning of the word has several references in usage, : lift up, abolish, cancel, suspend, sublate, preserve, transcend, annul, rescind, neutralize, balance out; in reference to Hegel's use.

I think that the words "cancel" and "annul" do not fit here.

Meno_ wrote:It's apropo and ironic simultaneously to hold an etymological disparity of one word, while holding to the unification of disparate political systems, which seems to validate in this way a congruency, which underlies Your proposition.

Does this somehow, in a far flung manner possibly demonstrate the geometrical, or spatial logic underlying this seeming unity of both: the linguistic contradictory derivative, with the societal , familial process that is also mentioned above?

Yes, if you mean the following sentence:

Arminius wrote:When it comes to the obfuscation of familial, genealogical and successful filiations (especially if they are the basics for the premises of a so-called "social life") the alleged "enemies" capitalism/liberalism and communism/socialism are the best friends.

To all of those who live in America and do not support Trump, shouldn't the question be asked 'how loyal are you to your country, if our country is lead by a faulty president and you know it and can not lend your support to set said faulty president to right?' Furthermore should be questioned, if the president in question isn't faulty, are you even checking to make sure your own views aren't faulty and can be backed up by reasonable logic and evidence that supports them to be true and lacking fault?

Good questions. The fact is only those Americans who live in the US who are capable of changing the way the country is run, by having access to power qualify. We, most of us here are only thinkers, who may or may not have the power to change viewpoints, of those, who happen to read here, and be receptive to the question and implications here exhibited.

The facts have become anomalous with fiction, as pointed out above, to the point, that most in house polls here - ILP - are evenly split between facts and fiction. That is an important point, since there is bias out there, again split. Without determining what TRUTH is, how can it be suggested that it is the duty of Americans to ascertain it?

Should the question imply wider, extended propositions? By examining the meaning and the value of 'loyalty' and 'country'? Then somehow link those meanings to the changed fabric of what the represent? Literally, 'representation' the basic formulae whence modern societies coalesce the manyformed connection of members of nations to present themselves and be able to be heard individually? Or, has society passed the point of caring, primarily by the thought that their singular opinion is only a drop in the ocean of pre-determined power structures, where control and forced outcomes are achieved by propaganda, and illicit fraudulent , illigal methods?

Is the supposed and ever returning suspicion of most citizens about voter fraud not becoming more and more prevelant, hence their growing apathy about the 'political machine?

I agree with You, that we should care about our country, but more and more people are alienated by the realization that they are being shut out from the sources of power which they once found themselves .

In fact they would like to change things, but many people, at least here in the states are talking in terms of not recognizing the country which once they inhabited. They would not openly feel that they shouldn't care about their nation, but they have become in their own estimation powerless to do so.

Unions are busted, standards are lowering, while the cost of living increases by leaps and bounds. Tru basically is a populist, inflaming these oft subliminal feelings, more really than thoughts, and this may not rest well with supporters who see no upward surge in their life.

I should think, that the precariousness of the present largest economy of the world casts a long shadow outside of the States, and if an outward projection of power is not xcercised by the political elite, an implosion may result, with unfoseeable consequences.

Everyone wants to care, but more and more it is becoming a narrowing internal field of what such care consists of.

Should the question imply wider, extended propositions? By examining the meaning and the value of 'loyalty' and 'country'? Then somehow link those meanings to the changed fabric of what the represent? Literally, 'representation' the basic formulae whence modern societies coalesce the manyformed connection of members of nations to present themselves and be able to be heard individually? Or, has society passed the point of caring, primarily by the thought that their singular opinion is only a drop in the ocean of pre-determined power structures, where control and forced outcomes are achieved by propaganda, and illicit fraudulent , illigal methods?

Is the supposed and ever returning suspicion of most citizens about voter fraud not becoming more and more prevelant, hence their growing apathy about the 'political machine?

I agree with You, that we should care about our country ....

I did not say that "we should care about our country". I asked whether you should do it or not.

Why should one ever question whether we should or should not be loyal to our country? It is the country we were born to and those surrounding us we don't have a choice but to be surrounded by and perhaps our country and the individuals therein are not perfect and may give us cause to question here and there our ties and our stakes and our reasons or lack thereof to be loyal, but certainly things could be far, far worse. While We might be given every single right to hate our fellow man and woman; to hate every single living thing and in direct observation even hate the part of the world we were thrust into, our loyalty to those things should never be questioned. Why? Because they are already constantly in question, constantly tested, constantly just misused and abused. When it comes down to it and everyone is called to throw in their lots to the whole, do you think they will side with the ones who choose not to be loyal to their country and the individuals surrounding them? Or, do you expect them to be like craven animals at the least and speak a big game, but at the heart of it, choose loyalty to each other and their country and watch the non-loyal burn.

At the least, it is survivalism, even if not done for the reasons of love and loyalty, but to do so for the simplicity of the fact of better the evil you know than the one you don't. At most, at the least, a return to love long departed, a clinging to each other and a binding. You question loyalty so casually that I question intensely every day while my life is roasted on the fires of Hell itself. And still, every day, I note that so many others lives are roasted in those same fires whether we hate or love each other and the strongest of us is fueled by love. The binding factor is loyalty and it is never blind nor is it ever at or with, or to a, fault. Loyalty and love, binds forged in trial and tribulation. I find that it does not matter if you choose to question or choose not to be loyal to your country. I find that it's a matter of when it comes time to have your loyalty called into action, most of you will be whether you want to be or not.

That's different, I thought the meaning was generic. As far as an individual is concerned, me, in this case, I would unqualifiedly support the nation, regardless who is at the helm, hoping the checks and balances finally will set things straight.

This feeling for the land, which results in loyalty, has to be absolute, and when it comes to asserting loyalty, a blind eye cannot follow political values not in accordance with those values which are defined as constitutional. Resistance ,even if silent or ineffectual, need to present a voice of conscience, for the love of the land requires it

This to the last option in the question, ' In any case', since in my mind at least, there is no choice in the matter, patriotism should not be based on executive choices, but in the love of the Land.

Social bondage and thusly changed values in the human bondage of that society may tend to discolor the right way to go, propagandists are keen to use their expertise to effect social change

Thus, there need no qualification to validate political choices on basis of some kind of polling, since polls change in accordance with propaganda as well

The black constitutional letter should not.change either, so as to prevent the whims of a Superior Court packed with a current biased judges. That changes the equation totally, against the effective application of checks and balances

There are examples in history and also in the present that show people who hate their country (really or not really - this is often not clear). So it is possible. And everything that is possible can become real.

Now I have to ask You, whether the above applies internationally as well, especially, in Your country, Germany, that is, are there German citizens living in Germany , who have no loyalty to Germany, or even hate Germany.

I don't mean by this, immigrants, and naturalized citizens, but ethnic Germans?

I have to augment my reasoning why there is somuch dislike if the US by citizens here. And perhaps that has a lot do do with the long standing politically repressed parts of the population, who have been emancipated through the outcome of the Civil War.

Black Americans, American Indians, particularly, but other minority groups also give an impression, if not necessarily a hate , or dislike, but an indifference toward their adopted country.

Some ethnic groups from Asia, have had a long standing practice of isolating themselves from main stream communities, retaining to an absolute extent their native identity. Identity, established by identification through peer group association, is maintained in civic areas, such as: Little Tokyo, Chinatown, Koreatown, and others. Others , composed of the Armenian Community, do congregate in particular communities, but are not explicitly known as such.

For the Hungarian communities, for which I can vouch, being a native Hungarian, the following is fairly accurate description.

Most Hungarians coming to Los Angeles during the epoch noted as the Hungarian Revolution of 1956' did follow similar trends, they settled in or near the central city, but as they got jobs, they tried to retain their neighborhood of fellow Hungarians.

This composition, never got to the level that Asian communities attained in the exclusivity of ethnic composition, in as much as it became far more multi ethnic, within a generation, after which families could be found, if rare, where, some offspring were perceived as loosing their cultural signatures of language, behavior, and affiliations.

For instance, the Hungarian Catholic Church was shepherded by a Hungarian priest, and familiars after mass lunches were prepared, weekly dances held in cultural halls, etc. tThis is now gone. There were about a dozen or so Hungarian restaurants back in 1965, now there are none.

One of the explanations is the population factor, where, Asia supplies almost an endless number of immigrants coming through based on populations in the billions in the home country, whereas Hungary has a chronic population of around 10 million holding steady since the end of WW, when greater Hungary was severely cut away from former territories.

This seeming diversion is not unplanned, it is something I can write about, having lived through it, and in an offshoot way will come in relevance with the Trump debate.

Coming to the relevance , -multiculturalism, and world wide historical demotition of other ethnic groups, by way of the slave trade, and colonial wars, wars , at first outside of Europe, caused great turmoil. When modernity resulted in de-colonialization, the projected sense of the formulas of equality changed, very gradually at first, then with increasing rates of change.

The equalization was a foreseen event, long before the political, legal , social and psychological effects were publicly began to be apprehended.

Right now, the world as a whole, if there really is such an animal, self conceives in terms of similarities rather then differences, for the reason that a Yale guy,proclaimed this era as one that has buried its own history.

Why do the multipluralistic society develop resentment growing into hate and finally violence within its own borders?

Logistics can explain it in terms of the common sense war of the misconceived war of attrition, between classes, within a supposedly classless society, that the US is trumped into cimprehension. What is the 'classless society? What perimeters define the boundaries wherein differences, rather then similarities begin to take root? For sure that they do in terms of the above as they coalesce into a such perceived ways of apprehending difference. That such derivation is logically impossible, does not cross the every day man who feels trapped into the multivaried confusion that is evolving way much to quickly for his digestion.

That is what US democracy feels and looks like, and Trumpism is nothing else but a carefully pre-planned , pre calibrated effort to develop a safety valve by which to try to inform the anger filled sociatal constituency.

For the reasons above, the main ingredient seems to me , an effort to help along a melting pot society, which, because it is such a nearing world wide, rather then only a US experiment, to be able to function.

The costs are at once phenomenal and exponentionally daunting, the very soul of identities are changed, through at times incredible and almost impossible costs, to both:individuals and societies. At appears like some kind of finality, a reversal of a dissolution so dramatic, as to forge the impression of a total reduction: the effect of which may truly be a world of a total hopeless didactically posed question : either/or, ; a total cut away of the possible from the potential, leading to the end , at least a world as it always has been experienced.